Googology Wiki talk:Policy
Ignore all rules I think 'Ignore all rules' is not good. For example: someone creates an article without sources, it will be deleted. Why? (S)he ignored the rule: 'You should at least cite something'. But (s)he just ignored all rules. So we might have to change some rules. Also, ignore 'do not vandalize' is also not good. In fact, I can't think up a rule that won't mess up the wiki when ignored. Wythagoras (talk) 06:48, March 9, 2014 (UTC) :We are humans and formal rules aren't necessary for us. Ikosarakt1 (talk ^ ) 07:13, March 9, 2014 (UTC) :The entire text of the rule is: ::"If a rule prevents you from maintaining or improving Googology Wiki, ignore it." :In other words, you can ignore all rules only if you intend to improve the wiki. We don't add that last clause because if you don't intend to improve the wiki, why would you be on here at all? :The purpose of IAR is to show that rules are flexible. They have exceptions, and those exceptions are when following the rule makes the wiki worse. Why not just fix the rule, then? It's a waste of time, and a rule might have tons of exceptions not worth covering in a policy page. :IAR does not create a liar's paradox. Googology Wiki's policies don't constitute a formal system of logic, even though our wiki involves a lot of discussion about formal systems :P FB100Z • talk • 09:19, March 9, 2014 (UTC) In my opinion, the current community needs more precise rules. Otherwise, do we have so many examples for which "ignore all rules" rule was helpful? Since the existing other rules are appropriate to keep the wiki sound, we do not need to ignore them except for the "ignore all rules" rule. It just prevents precise arguments on rules, and hence it is better to remove it now. Do anyone have an opposite opnion? If nobody does, then I will delete it. p-adic 00:53, January 27, 2020 (UTC) :I propose to replace "ignore all rules" to "the rules can be changed if the community needs it" for making it liberal yet formal and non-cotroversial. Triakula (talk) 09:38, January 27, 2020 (UTC) : I agree that the IAR rule is unnecessary at the current state of this wiki. Actually IAR rule was helpful when the community was not so large, and it was better to avoid making many rules. As the community has grown so large, we have established so many rules based on the agreement with the members. Many rules written here has been respected by many users on this wiki, and this means that the importance of the rules has grown compared to the starting era of this wiki. Actually "improving Googology Wiki" is a subjective criteria. Some people may think that the state of having lots of unsourced numbers on the wiki is "improved" state of Wiki. IAR rule gives excuse for such people. Of course there are some exceptions on the rule, but such exceptions should be at least "agreed on" with users, if not written explicitly in the policy page. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 09:49, January 27, 2020 (UTC) ::One thing I'm going to say is that Wikipedia has an "ignore all rules" policy despite it being the largest wiki on the world. Maybe think about it? -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 16:00, January 27, 2020 (UTC) ::: Thanks for the link. I found a page where Larry Sanger, who proposed the IAR rule, says: :::: The very first entry on a "rules to consider" page was the "Ignore All Rules" rule ... This is a "rule" that, current Wikipedians might be surprised to learn, I personally proposed. The reason was that I thought we needed experience with how wikis should work, and even more importantly at that point we needed participants more than we needed rules. As the project grew and the requirements of its success became increasingly obvious, I became ambivalent about this particular "rule" and then rejected it altogether. As one participant later commented, "this rule is the essence of Wikipedia." That was certainly never my view; I always thought of the rule as being a temporary and humorous injunction to participants to add content rather than be distracted by (then) relatively inconsequential issues about how exactly articles should be formatted, etc. ::: The creater of the rule also thinks that the rule was a temporal one. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 17:05, January 27, 2020 (UTC) ::: The IAR rule of the wikipedia links to Wikipedia has no firm rules. Maybe we can adapt this page and write "We have no firm rules. Sometimes improving Googology wiki requires making exceptions. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: (almost) every past version of a page is saved, so mistakes can be easily corrected.", if we want. �� Fish fish fish ... �� 17:39, January 27, 2020 (UTC) Revision I think this needs to be revised to help with ambiguity and to accomodate with things not really enforced anymore. Is there a second? If someone does, I'll write a "proposed article" somewhere like google docs and share it here to see if everyone agrees. But I definately think it needs changed. this.| }} (talk) 21:17, May 9, 2018 (UTC) :No second from Cloudy? this.| }} (talk) 18:57, May 10, 2018 (UTC) ::Instead of google docs, I suggest writing your proposal somewhere on this wiki. Somewhere like User:Nnn6nnn/Policy draft or something. -- ☁ I want more ⛅ 11:49, May 11, 2018 (UTC) :::: Ok. I'll do that! this.| }} (talk) 19:23, May 11, 2018 (UTC) Reliability of Wikipedia I think the rule about Wikipedia being a bad source should be removed. Just look here. [[User:Ubersketch|'uber'sketch]]�� 22:10, April 28, 2019 (UTC) : A "source" does not mean a "currently accurate information". It should be more stable and more reproducible. If a referred information is publicly edittable, then it does not ensure that it will display the same information in the future. Then it does not work as a source of an article. If a referred information is not a first source but lacks a link to a first source, then it does not give us a way to access a first source. It is bad for us to judge whether it is correct or not, even if it is eventually accurate. : Therefore publicly edittable information and unsourced information which is not a first source are not accademically regarded as valid sources even if they are currently accurate. Of course, the level of the stability and the reproducibility of sources allowed in this wiki is not so high as academic level, but is not so low that we allow publicly edittable information based on insufficient sources. Since you just referred to the accuracy by saying "just look here", I guess that you just forget these important factors. : p-adic 22:58, April 28, 2019 (UTC) Updating log on the rules on copyright (This comment is just for a log.) I updated the site policy on copyright through voting here. p-adic 05:59, February 17, 2020 (UTC) @Cloudy176 This policy is based on the discussion by members of this community. Even if you disagree with it, please listen to other members instead of deleting it. Seriously, what are you doing? p-adic 06:20, February 18, 2020 (UTC)